R v Grey - [2017] NZHC 1756

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-019-005279 [2017] NZHC 1756

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE BRADY GREY

Hearing: 27 July 2017

Counsel:

RRL Guthrie for Crown
CD Bean for Defendant

Judgment:

27 July 2017

SENTENCING REMARKS OF DOWNS J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton.
CD Bean, Hamilton.

R v GREY [2017] NZHC 1756 [27 July 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Grey, you were found guilty by a jury in the District Court of sexual offending against five young victims. It is common ground I must impose a substantial term of imprisonment on you. In issue, however, is preventive detention. Preventive detention is an indefinite sentence. The case was transferred from the District Court to this Court as the Crown contends that sentence should be imposed. Your lawyer, Mr Bean, argues a long prison sentence without preventive detention is sufficient. More about that later.

The charges

[2] You were found guilty of seven charges:

(a) Two of doing an indecent act on a girl under 12;1

(b) Two of doing an indecent act on a boy under 12;2

(c) Two of doing an indecent act on a young person;3 and

(d) One of sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection.4

The facts

[3] All of your offending occurred between 11 September 2013 and 3 September

2014. As observed, there are five young victims.

Offending against W

[4] W and his grandparents moved to live with you for two separate periods during 2013. They did so, in short, because they had little money. After they
returned home, they maintained close contact with you.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 132(3). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act, s 134(3). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act, s 128(1)(b). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.

[5] W went to your home to play video games. You were drinking. W began to fall asleep so you told him to sleep in your bed. He did. While he was asleep you unzipped his pants. You touched his genitals with your hand. He woke, stopped you from touching him and fell asleep again. Later that night W woke to find you touching his genitals and performing oral sex on him. You had pulled his pants and underpants down. You told W if he told the Police what had happened, you would go to jail.

[6] On another occasion W helped you with your paper round. He fell asleep in your car. He woke to find you touching his genitals over clothing.

[7] W was 12 when you committed these offences—but only just. He turned 12 in September 2013 and the offending occurred between then and the end of that year.

Offending against L and M

[8] The offending against these two victims occurred between 1 January and

3 September 2014. L was approximately four years of age; M approximately eight. L and M are brothers.

[9] You were a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Grey

Details

AGLC: R v Grey [2017] NZHC 1756
Case: [2017] NZHC 1756
Decision Date: 27 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grey involved the defendant, Shane Brady Grey, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against five young victims. The charges included indecent acts on girls and boys under 12, indecent acts on young persons, and sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection. The court was tasked with deciding on the appropriate sentence, specifically whether preventive detention should be imposed. The Crown argued for preventive detention, while the defence counsel contended that a long prison sentence without preventive detention would suffice.

The legal issues centered around the principles of sentencing for sexual offences against children, the risk of re-offending, and the applicability of preventive detention. The court had to determine if Grey was likely to commit a qualifying offence after serving a finite sentence and if preventive detention was necessary given his history of reoffending and lack of insight into his condition.

The court reasoned that Grey's pattern of offending, his risk of re-offending, and his failure to address the root cause of his offending indicated that preventive detention was necessary. Psychological evaluations indicated a high risk of re-offending, and Grey had shown no inclination for reform despite previous sentences. The court concluded that preventive detention was the only adequate sentencing response to protect the community. Grey was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of seven and a half years.

The final orders of the court mandated that Grey be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register and required to comply with ongoing reporting obligations for the rest of his life.

Orders